Patriarchal Terrorism or Common Couple Violence: Attorneys' Views of Prosecuting and Defending Woman Batterers

Abstract

In the last two decades, most states in the United States have passed laws to protect battered women and to enhance their access to the criminal justice system. Preliminary examinations suggest that the reforms have had a limited success on abused women's use of the law. This study examines the ways in which prosecuting and defense attorneys perceive and describe the dynamics of battering as they play out in court, and presents attorneys' views of prosecuting, defending and adjudicating cases of violence against women. Attorneys' views on the defenses commonly used in court and other issues of concern to reformers of domestic violence laws are also discussed. The study suggests that attorneys' accounts portray the woman-battering cases which reach the justice system as ‘common couple violence’ rather than ‘patriarchal terrorism’. Results indicate that the legal profession, charged with the prosecution and adjudication of domestic violence, resorts to gender stereotypes to excuse, minimize or tolerate violence against women. Similarly, legal professionals evaluate relevant criminal justice policy according to men's views of battering. The implications of the results for combating woman battering through law reform are discussed.